Hollinger v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
529 S.W.3d 242
Ark. Ct. App.2017Background
- Children D.H. and J.H. were removed after a 2015 controlled drug buy at a home where Ashley Hollinger lived; police found methamphetamine, hydrocodone, marijuana, and paraphernalia. ADHS had prior involvement dating to 2012.
- Court adjudicated the children dependent-neglected for parental unfitness, threat of harm, and inadequate supervision; reunification was the case plan with multiple court-ordered services (drug/alcohol assessment and treatment, parenting classes, psychological evaluation, domestic-violence classes, housing, income, transportation, resolve criminal charges).
- Ashley completed portions of the plan and had periods of sobriety and employment, but relapsed about 11 months into the case and tested positive for methamphetamine, amphetamine, and hydrocodone at ~13 months; she did not complete court-ordered drug treatment and had intermittent incarceration and mental-health hospitalization.
- ADHS filed a petition to terminate parental rights alleging failure to remedy, subsequent factors, and aggravated circumstances and arguing termination was in the children’s best interest; foster parents expressed interest in adopting.
- At the TPR hearing, ADHS’s caseworker testified that the children were adoptable and that Ashley’s relapse and lack of sustained completion of treatment showed she had not remedied conditions causing removal. Ashley testified she had stabilized, was in treatment, and sought more time.
- The Sebastian County Circuit Court terminated Ashley’s parental rights, finding ADHS proved statutory grounds by clear and convincing evidence and that termination was in the children’s best interest; Ashley appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Hollinger's Argument | ADHS's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to establish statutory grounds (failure to remedy) for TPR | Hollinger: She had been sober at hearing, was participating in treatment, complied with some case-plan requirements, so grounds not proved | ADHS: Relapse, positive drug tests, incomplete treatment, and instability show she failed to remedy conditions that caused removal | Court: Affirmed—clear-and-convincing evidence supports failure-to-remedy ground |
| Whether termination was in the children’s best interest (likelihood of adoption and potential harm if returned) | Hollinger: She had stabilized, was attending therapy, employed, and should be given more time; risk of harm was speculative | ADHS: Children were adoptable and returning them posed potential harm due to mother’s ongoing substance-abuse instability and incomplete treatment | Court: Affirmed—trial court reasonably found risk of potential harm and likelihood of adoption, so TPR was in children’s best interest |
Key Cases Cited
- Camarillo-Cox v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 201 S.W.3d 391 (supreme court) (parental improvement as TPR becomes imminent may not outweigh prior failures to remedy)
- Dinkins v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 40 S.W.3d 286 (Ark. 2001) (continued noncompliance with case plan supports TPR to effectuate statutory purpose)
- Pine v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 379 S.W.3d 703 (appellate court) (parent substance abuse is a relevant factor in TPR analysis)
- Humbert v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 460 S.W.3d 316 (appellate court) (substance abuse considered in termination decisions)
- Wright v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 115 S.W.3d 332 (appellate court) (partial compliance with case plan insufficient when parent continues conduct adverse to child)
- Allen v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 384 S.W.3d 7 (appellate court) (continued drug use shows potential harm to children)
- McFarland v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 210 S.W.3d 143 (appellate court) (court may consider potential harm, not only actual harm)
- Dowdy v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 314 S.W.3d 722 (appellate court) (potential-harm inquiry is forward-looking and broad)